Statement from Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch

The JC.com

Muslim peer in ‘student war’ slur

From The Jewish Chronicle

Marcus Dysch

February 5, 2009

Lord Ahmed claims UK Jewish groups actively recruited volunteers to fight with IDF

Allegations: Lord Ahmed

A Muslim peer has claimed that student societies are recruiting young British Jews to join the Israeli army. They fought, he said, in last month’s Gaza conflict and should be prosecuted for war crimes on their return to this country.

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham said student unions had been “actively recruiting young people in Britain to join the Israeli Defence Force”.

British citizens had, he claimed, “gone out to fight against the Palestinian people”.

The evidence on which he said he based his claim was a 2007 blog posting from the website of Akram Awad, a Palestine Solidarity Group activist who caused outrage among students the previous year by introducing a motion which effectively gagged Leeds University’s Jewish Society.

Lord Ahmed’s comments were made during an interview with Press TV, the Iranian government-funded news channel, after he was asked whether British citizens were serving with the Israeli army.

He told the interviewer that newspaper reports in January had shown that to be the case and continued: “How many of those have been involved in war crimes? How many of those have broken the Geneva Convention?

“When they come back to this country, we want our government to take some legal action against them.

“The IDF and those who serve in it have been involved in the massacre of civilians… There is just no excuse for anyone to get away from these war crimes this time.”

The Union of Jewish Students said the peer’s allegations were part of a “continued campaign” against British Jewish organisations.

The blog posting from May 13, 2007 stated: “I could never imagine that the UJS is shameful enough to call the Jewish British students for ‘National Service’ in Israel by voluntarily serving in the Israeli Occupation Army.”

It went on to give details of the Sar-El programme, which offers volunteers the chance to work in Israeli nursing homes, and stay on army bases packing supply bags or helping in kitchens.

Volunteers do not see front-line action.

Explaining his comments, Lord Ahmed said he would not limit charges to Jewish students, but “any British citizen who goes abroad to take religious education from any school and then gets involved with killing any innocent civilians. I was talking generally.

“I definitely think if there’s evidence then they should be prosecuted here for war crimes when they return. God willing I will pursue it. Regardless of what community they are from, if they have broken international law they should be prosecuted.”

Yair Zivan, UJS campaigns director, said: “Lord Ahmed seems purposely to confuse volunteer programmes in the IDF and full military service as part of his continued campaign to attack and undermine British Jewish institutions.”

The 51-year-old peer, who is a trustee of the Jewish-Muslim dialogue group, the Joseph Interfaith Foundation, was interviewed following a House of Lords debate last week during which he asked whether British citizens who had “served in Gaza” would be prosecuted.

During the debate, Baroness Tonge asked whether the government was concerned that “every summer many Jewish schoolchildren from this country go to Israel for military and citizenship training by the Education and Youth Corps of the IDF?”

Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown responded by saying it was “very unlikely” any UK nationals had served in recent operations.

The House of Lords Whips Office said it was unlikely action would be taken against Lord Ahmed following his comments

==============

Britain Capitulates To Terror

WEDNESDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY 2009

If anyone had doubted the extent to which Britain has capitulated to Islamic terror, the banning of Geert Wilders a few hours ago should surely open their eyes. Wilders, the Dutch member of parliament who had made an uncompromising stand against the Koranic sources of Islamist extremism and violence, was due to give a screening of Fitna, his film on this subject, at the House of Lords on Thursday. This meeting had been postponed after Lord Ahmed had previously threatened the House of Lords authorities that he would bring a force of 10,000 Muslims to lay siege to the Lords if Wilders was allowed to speak. To their credit, the Lords authorities had stood firm and said extra police would be drafted in to meet this threat and the Wilders meeting should go ahead.

But now the government has announced that it is banning Wilders from the country. A letter from the Home Secretary’s office to Wilders, delivered via the British embassy in the Hague, said:

...the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.

So let’s get this straight. The British government allows people to march through British streets screaming support for Hamas, it allows Hizb ut Tahrir to recruit on campus for the jihad against Britain and the west, it takes no action against a Muslim peer who threatens mass intimidation of Parliament, but it bans from the country a member of parliament of a European democracy who wishes to address the British Parliament on the threat to life and liberty in the west from religious fascism.

It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.

It was the same reasoning that led the police on those pro-Hamas marches to confiscate the Israeli flag, on the grounds that it would provoke violence, while those screaming support for genocide and incitement against the Jews were allowed to do so. The reasoning was that the Israeli flag might provoke thuggery while the genocidal incitement would not. So those actually promoting aggression were allowed to do so while those who threatened no-one at all were repressed. And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’.

Wilders is a controversial politician, to be sure. But this is another fateful and defining issue for Britain’s governing class as it continues to sleepwalk into cultural suicide.  If British MPs do not raise hell about this banning order, if they go along with this spinelessness, if they fail to stand up for the principle that the British Parliament of all places must be free to hear what a fellow democratically elected politician has to say about one of the most difficult and urgent issues of our time, if they fail to hold the line against the threat of violence but capitulate to it instead, they will be signalling that Britain is no longer the cradle of freedom and democracy but its graveyard.

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Statement from Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch

We have received the following joint statement from Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the joint sponsors of Geert Wilders's invitation:

Joint press statement from Lord Pearson of Rannoch and The Baroness Cox

The Koran and Freedom of Speech – Her Majesty's Government bans Geert Wilders from the United Kingdom

Would this have happened if Mr Wilders had said "Ban the Bible"?

Our western society, and indeed the majority of peaceful Muslims, are being intimidated far too much by violent Islamists. On this occasion, the British government is guilty of appeasement.

We do not agree with Geert Wilders that the Koran should be banned – even in Holland where 'Mein Kampf' is banned. We don't want it banned but discussed – particularly by the majority Muslim community; and specifically as to whether it may promote or justify - or has promoted or justified - violence. We are therefore promoting freedom of speech.

Geert Wilder's 'Fitna' film (available on the web) is not a threat to anyone. It merely suggests how the Koran has been used by militant Islamists to promote and justify their violence.

They react in fury and menace to our intention to show the film and have boasted that their threats of aggressive demonstrations prevented its previous showing in the Mother of Parliaments. This was not the case – the event was postponed to clarify issues of freedom of speech. The threat of intimidation in fact increases the justification for the film to be shown and discussed in Parliament and by the British and international press.

Indeed, any alleged threats associated with Lord Ahmed of attempts to prevent the showing of the film would themselves be a confirmation of the film’s message and the need for it to be shown.

The subsequent action by the Home Office to try to deter Mr Wilders from coming to the UK has, we believe, been rightly condemned by the Dutch foreign minister, and is a further example of the appeasement policies of the British government in giving in to the threats of militant Islam.

We intend to show and discuss the film with members of the British Parliament and the press as previously indicated, with or without Mr Wilders.

The press conference remains booked: "The Koran and Freedom of Speech" A screening of Fitna (2008 – 17 mins) plus a Q&A with Geert Wilders MP (Holland).

COMMENT THREAD

Well, now we have a problem

It is no longer just the Dutch; we, too, have a problem. Actually, there is nothing new about lack of freedom of speech in this country. What do you think those draconian libel laws are for? The latest development is going a little further as well as, we suspect, breaking EU rules.

This afternoon I was told that the meeting with Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and general trouble-maker, in the House of Lords was going ahead. It was to be a private meeting at which Mr Wilders was given an opportunity to explain his point of view to invited MPs and Peers, despite the threats made by Lord Ahmed of bringing many thousands of rage-filled Islamists along.

(Lord Ahmed is, incidentally, awaiting sentencing for dangerous driving, to wit causing the death of another motorist as he was texting and receiving messages while speeding along the motorway. If Jack Straw's new rules are brought in, he may lose his peerage, if imprisoned as at least one other driver in similar circumstances has been. Then again, pigs might fly.)

It seems, however, that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs (yes, the wretched Straw Jacqui Smith again) or his minions do not think that members of the House of Lords should have the right to invite people to give them presentations.

As Reuters reports:

A Dutch member of parliament facing prosecution because of his anti-Islam remarks said on Tuesday that Britain had refused him entry to the country as a threat to public security. 

Geert Wilders had wanted to show a short film, "Fitna," which accuses the Koran of inciting violence, in the British parliament, but said the British authorities had told him he was excluded from the country.

"The secretary of state (minister) is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film "Fitna" and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the United Kingdom," Wilders told Dutch television a letter he had received from the British government said.

Wilders faces prosecution by an Amsterdam court for inciting hatred and discrimination.

Britain's Home Office (interior ministry) declined to comment on Wilders' exclusion, but a spokeswoman said the government opposed all forms of extremism.

"It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country," she said.

Uh-huh! What's the state of play on Abu Hamza a.k.a. Captain Hook? And what of Lord Ahmed who not only goes around causing death of innocent motorists through dangerous driving but threatens to disrupt meetings in the House of Lords through violence? That, of course, is not extremism.

However, the situation can become quite awkward. Mr Wilders has not been found guilty of anything (unlike Lord Ahmed) and is a parliamentarian in another EU member state. Does the Home Office have the right to exclude him from the country?

It seems that the Dutch government is not happy.

Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said the Dutch government would press Britain to reverse the ban and said he "deeply regretted" that a Dutch lawmaker had been barred access.

By the way, the second invitation to Mr Wilders came from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whom this blog admires unreservedly for all his work.

Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to show "Fitna" at the House of Lords on Thursday, said he was "very surprised that the British government should ban a European citizen — and an elected Dutch MP at that — from coming to this country."

He called his government's decision "weak and unacceptable in the extreme."

Pearson said he took exception to some of Wilders' statements but wanted to show his film "precisely to uphold his right to freedom of speech, even if we disagree with what he's saying."

He added that he would do his best to help Wilders to show his film in the UK, despite the ban.

I am putting my money on Lord Pearson. Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs. Rien ne va plus.

UPDATE: Mr Wilders has announced that he will travel to Britain despite the ban. Will he be arrested and deported? Dutch politicians of all stripes remain unhappy, as well they might be. 

COMMENT THREAD

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Not all is lost

It would appear that support for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands is growing and even his political rivals are speaking up for him. Michael van der Galienexplains the political background and traces the developments.

COMMENT THREAD

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

We have a problem

Well, to be quite precise, Netherlands has a problem but as we are all one big happy family these days, what affects them, affects us. Maybe. I hope not.

Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and general troublemaker, of whom we have written before, is to be prosecuted for anti-Islamic statements in his film "Fitna" (here is what we wrote about that) and articles in the newspaper De Volkskrant. It seems that he linked Islamism with terror and violence and there were more than 40 complaints. Not, I assume, from the victims of that terror and violence, most of whom are Muslims.

Last July we wrote that the Dutch prosecutors sensibly took the decision not to prosecute him. Now the Court of Appeals has overthrown that decision.

The Court of Appeal said it "considers criminal prosecution obvious for the insult of Islamic worshippers" after Wilders compared parts of their faith with Nazism. The ruling, posted on the court's Web site today, overturns a decision by the prosecutor last year not to charge Wilders.

I am looking forward to the prosecution of all those who compare Israel to Nazi Germany, the fighting in Gaza to the Holocaust and all Jews to members of the SS, as well as the prosecution of all those who scream that Hitler's work must be finished and all Jews should be sent back to the gas ovens. But I will not hold my breath.

Michelle Malkin wants to know where President Obama stands on this. I am more interested to know where Prime Minister Brown stands, since he is here. Come to think of it, where do other European leaders who are endlessly extolling "European values" stand?

COMMENT THREAD

Thursday, July 03, 2008

More on Geert Wilders

Front Page Magazine follows upthe story of Geert Wilders and the Jordanian attempt to extradite him.

In a brazen attempt to stifle free speech in the West, a Jordanian court recently summoned twelve European citizens to answer criminal charges of blasphemy and inciting hatred.

Among those sought by the court is Geert Wilders, the Dutch liberal politician who made the anti-Islamist film, Fitna. Released last March, the Dutch MP’s production caused an uproar in Islamic countries, since it equated Islam with violence. Now a Middle Eastern court would like to prosecute Wilders for the “crime.” (Ironically, a Dutch court dropped charges against him for inciting hatred against Muslims with his film the day before the Jordanian court issued its subpoena.)

The Jordanian court’s move is only the most ambitious attempt to silence debate about Islam. Until now, the preferred strategy has been to file civil lawsuits in western courts to intimidate critics. The latest version of what may be called the legal jihad is even more disturbing.

In one subpoena, issued in early June, the Jordanian court ordered ten Danish newspaper editors to travel to Jordan for the “crime” of having republished the “Mohammad cartoons” last February. The cartoons, first published in 2005, were also greeted with disturbances in Muslim lands. Seventeen Danish newspapers republished the controversial cartoons as a response to the discovery of an Islamist plot to murder Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard, a caricaturist, drew the most famous of those cartoons in the form of Mohammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban, for which he is also included in the summons.

It is, of course, outrageous to have courts issuing summonses on behalf of groups with an obvious political agenda, in this case, something called "Messenger of Allah Unite Us", for something done in other countries where it is not a crime. We would never do such a thing in our civilized European Union, would we now.

If, as is presumed, the Jordanian court will try to issue an international arrest warrant, the people in question will have to rethink their future travel plans. As they all seem to be under police protection because of threats from other peace-loving, free-thinking groups and individuals, such as the man who butchered Theo van Gogh, this may not be such a big problem.

However, the boycott on Dutch and Danish goods has restarted, having been interrupted by, would you believe it, business considerations:

The boycott campaign actually began late last February but was suspended due to the losses Jordanian importers were incurring that had large stocks of unsold Danish and Dutch products.

The boycott, however, was resumed June 10. One million posters containing the logos of banned Dutch and Danish products will eventually hang in Jordanian businesses under the title “Living Without It.” The boycott will also be spread by television and radio ads, t-shirts, and bumper stickers.

As I recall the supposedly widespread boycott of Danish goods in the Middle East did very little damage to that country's economy and, in fact, encouraged other people to buy more lego and Danish cooking utensils.

It seems logical that all the businesses in question have to do is sit back and say: "Do your worst but don't expect any trade with us in future." Or words to that effect. Instead of which they do what businesses do best: they shake and shiver. Oh and grovel.

Dutch and Danish companies were instructed they could get their products off the boycott list if they, essentially, betrayed their nations’ values and their countrymen. The affected companies, according to The Jordan Times, were told to denounce the Dutch film and the Danish cartoons in the media both in Jordan and in at least one publication in their own country, support the Jordanian legal action taken against Wilders and the Danish newspaper people as well as the creation of an international anti-blasphemy law.

Several companies have already complied. When informed of the stipulation that requires a denunciation be published in a Dutch newspaper, a spokesman for a Dutch food company that exports to Jordan said his company “…would print it if needed.”

But such groveling will only buy these companies a little time, as another Dutch company discovered. It had immediately distanced itself from Wilders and Fitna after the film’s release last March but still had products placed on the boycott posters.

The Dutch government did not fare much better in its appeasement efforts. One Dutch embassy official in Jordan said he was surprised his country was included in the boycott in the first place since his government had already printed statements in the Jordanian press distancing itself from Wilders’ film.

And, naturally, the Jordanian blackmailers’ demands have not stopped. Only last week, Dutch and Danish companies were told to put the boycott posters up in their own countries if they did not want their products blacklisted.

Perhaps to further intimidate Holland’s and Denmark’s populations, the Jordanians are also claiming their boycott campaign is causing these countries huge financial losses of over four billion Euros in four months. A Danish official, however, says that is ridiculous since his country only exported about $50 million worth of goods to Jordan in 2007.

Somebody remind me again why we are supposed to listen to businessmen on matters political. It's just as well that some unnamed Danish official has kept his head in all this hullaballoo.

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Holland asserts the importance of free speech

Reuters reports that: 

Dutch prosecutors said Monday that they would not take action against a politician who angered Muslims worldwide with a film critical of the Koran because he is protected by the right to free speech.

People may have been offended by some of the things Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party may have said in his anti-Koran film or in interviews, but that did not mean that he did not have have the right to say it.

Mr Wilders is still under protection because of the various threats (not to be taken lightly in Holland) by people who believe in free speech, honest, but think it should be linked to "respect".

Interestingly, the article points out that:

The film sparked calls for boycotts of Dutch products in some Muslim countries, but did not lead to the kind of violence that was directed against Denmark in 2006 after newspapers there published cartoons that featured the Prophet Mohammad.

Hmm, one wonders why that is so. Could it be because no Imam has travelledround the Middle East with fraudulent evidence, inciting violence?

UPDATE: In the meantime we have received a link to a Dutch blog, which points out that Geert Wilders's problems have not gone away. The Dutch government is merely washing its collective hands.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Freedom of speech is a European value but ...

Though Geert Wilders’s film Fitna, which is less than totally complimentary about Islam, the Qu’ran and, above all, terrorism committed in the name of Islam, is now available on the internet, I am actually finding it hard to link to it. Some of our readers might have better luck, though, as Charles Johnson on Little Green Footballs points out, some of the scenes in this 15 minute film might be harrowing.

In other words, I am not in a position to pass judgement on the film. It may not be particularly accurate and it may confuse Islam with Islamism. Other people who have seen it, think that it is hard going but not particularly offensive to anyone who is not out there wanting to be offended and is threatening to kill anyone who suggests that Islam is not the most tolerant religion under the sun.

In any case, the suggestion that almost all recent terrorist activity has been carried out by Islamists who quote the Qu’ran to justify their behaviour is hardly contentious.

As Robert Spencer on Jihadwatch details, the protests in the Muslim countries have started already, because, as we know, Pakistan, Iran and other countries of that kind know all about freedom of speech and respect for other religions.

England Expects discusses the BBC article on Geert Wilders and the omissions in it, such as the fact that Mr Wilders’s name was on the piece of paper that had been skewered to the body of Theo van Gogh (spelling Mr Towler/Harvey!), the murdered film-maker.

The various protests by the Muslim countries and, inevitably, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), another expert on freedom of speech and tolerance, has acquired an unexpected and somewhat confused supporter. Yes, dear readers, you have guessed it – the European Union, that embodiment of European values, among which freedom of speech always seems to come high. (Though, as I have already pointed out in what is still a half-finished posting, the concept of freedom of speech is an inadequate and unhelpful one, easily destroyed.)

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has called on Britain, the Netherlands and the European Union to ban the film and has spoken particularly harshly about this country because the website that is hosting the film, LiveLeak, is based here.

The film is described as “dirty” and provocative whose intention is to insult and, no doubt, hurt Muslims. This should not be allowed, the Iranian Foreign Ministry maintains. And if it is, there might be violence as Muslims yet again display their rage at being so insulted.

LiveLeak issued a statement Thursday saying there was no legal reason not to allow Wilders to post the film. It said the site's policy is to remain unbiased and allow freedom of speech. Some in the Muslim community rejected the film as nothing more than dangerous anti-Islamic propaganda.

"This film is a direct attempt to incite violence from Muslims and help fan the flames of Islamophobia," Arsalan Iftikhar, a contributor to Washington-based Islamica Magazine, told CNN on Thursday. "Any reasonable person can see this is meant to spit in the face of Muslims and insult our religion."

Iftikhar said he doubted the film would spark the same type of violence that followed the publication of the caricature of Mohammed, but he called on Muslim leaders to react peacefully.”

As the film is on the net, it might be a little difficult for imams to travel round some Middle Eastern countries with fraudulent versions of it as Abu Laban did with the Danish cartoons as we wrote here, here and here.

Meanwhile, what has been the EU’s reaction? Well, not very helpful to those of us who believe in freedom and prefer to think that if we must have governments, they should be there to protect our liberties from those who are threatening them.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Thursday that the film equates Islam with violence.

"We reject this interpretation," Balkenende said in a statement. "The vast majority of Muslims reject extremism and violence. In fact, the victims are often also Muslims."

Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, said Friday that it supports the Dutch government's position and believes the film does nothing to promote dialogue among religions.

"Mutual tolerance and respect are universal values we should uphold. We believe that acts, such as the above-mentioned film, serve no other purpose than inflaming hatred."

Well, if the Slovenian government can direct me to examples of that “mutual tolerance and respect” and explain how many other parts of the world think of them as “universal values” I shall be very happy.

It would also be quite useful if some of these politicians would explain how suppressing our liberty could possibly help the Muslims who are fighting for theirs.

I mean, these people wouldn’t be afraid, would they? After all, you know, some of those alleged believers in mutual tolerance and respect go around demanding that all those who insult Islam be executed, massacred or exterminated.

In the circumstances, I can’t resist it: here is a not very well known clip from that wonderful film with Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, “Babes on Broadway”. It is sort of appropriate. Enjoy! But have a hankie at the ready.

UPDATE

LiveLink has announced that it has had to take the film down because of threats to its staff. This appears to be a victory for the forces of terror and censorship as well as the pusillanimous politicians of the EU and SecGen Ban Ki-Moon, who, inevitably, condemned the film. On the other hand, the film has already been seen by millions of people and is still available on many other internet addresses. Here are some more links.

Friday, November 24, 2006

Another coalition in the making

The Dutch electionresults have produced yet another political impasse. They are becoming the norm in Europe, which may be quite a good thing. Against all predictions, the Christian Democrat Party under the Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has remained the largest party in the parliament but has no outright mandate to form a government.

Balkenende will have to negotiate with his opponents in the Labour Party (who are somewhat disappointed by the results) and a. n. other, possibly the old-fashioned Socialist Party under the former Communist Jan Marijnissen, who has already ruled out (for the time being, anyway) the possibility of going into a coalition with the CDA.

As Balkenende put it:

It's a very complicated result. Of course you can imagine I'm very happy with the results for the Christian Democrats, we've made enormous progress during the last months, we've had an excellent campaign and the most important question was, which party will be the largest party in the Netherlands, because you can take the lead from that information.

So I really hope I can go on as the prime minister, but that depends on the new coalition and that is really a complicated situation at the moment. Nonetheless, we will have meetings of the main political groups in the parliament tomorrow (Thursday) and then the whole process will start as far as building the new government is concerned.

As yet we do not know whether has begun and on what terms.

Interestingly enough, and again despite predictions, a high number of votes went to the smaller parties at both ends of the spectrum, including the anti-immigration Partij voor de Vrijehid (Party for Freedom), led by Geert Wilders, the man who has to live in permanent hiding after threats made by the murderer of the film-maker Theo van Gogh. They have nine seats, more, as Mr Wilders pointed out, than the Green Left.

Before anyone asks, it does not look as if Europe, the European Union and that pesky referendum had been high on any party's political agenda.

It looks like months of negotiating and log-rolling is in store for the Dutch people, who have shown themselves to be somewhat dissatisfied with the ruling consensus.

COMMENT THREAD

Friday, March 11, 2005

Losing faith in Europe

Taking the temperature of the EU constitution debate in Holland, Andrew Browne of The Times has been to Maastricht and finds that the Dutch are losing faith in Europe.

One of the people he interviewed was Frederick Brom, who declared that he was opposed to the EU harmonising everything. "In the EU, everything becomes the same, and that’s a real pity. When I go to France, I want to eat French cheese made by a farmer in his cellar, but with hygiene standards, everything becomes the same."

That is an interesting comment, not least because it transcends political dogma and gets down to the real practical consequences of European integration. To the despair of the Europhiles, who inhabit their own cloud-cuckoo-land of idealism, it is sentiments like this, amongst ordinary people, which I believe are eventually going to bring the "project" down.

Interestingly, my own route to Euroscepticism was driven by a similar sentiment when, as a recently qualified health inspector in 1972 I found that the (then) EEC poultry meat hygiene directive disqualified me from practising the craft for which I had just qualified, making me subordinate to veterinary surgeons, irrespective of whether they had any qualifications in food hygiene – all because there was no equivalent of the British health inspector system on the continent.

Browne calls this "cynicism", which he says has taken root in one of the EU's founding members, although I would call it realism. Nevertheless, he paints a word picture of European flags fluttering in the freezing wind outside the bars. In the marketplace, he writes, shops do brisk business in euros and the monument of metal Euro stars stretches skyward above the slogan: “We must move beyond nation states.”

Maastricht, that small Dutch town on the borders of Belgium and Germany, does of course have special significance in the history of the Union, the town where the treaty that gave birth to the euro was signed. It displays its European credentials proudly.

But, writes Browne, while the symbols remain in place, a strange thing is happening to the people who live here: they are starting to sound Eurosceptic. He cites “a grey-haired woman, as she scuttled along the cobbled pedestrian streets, lined with traditional Dutch gabled houses”, saying: "It's just too bureaucratic, too big. The EU and the people are too far apart... It gets bigger, bigger, bigger."

With the Dutch government having announced that a referendum on the constitution will take place on June 1, in an extraordinary about-turn, such sentiment may mean that he Netherlands may scupper the EU constitution. A recent poll showed that 42 percent of Dutch would choose to vote "no", against 28 per cent who plan to vote "yes", making the Netherlands the only founding member of the EU in which opinion polls suggest that the constitution will be rejected.

Other commentators whom Browne consults include a troupe of actors enjoying a midmorning rest outside a café in the main square in Maastricht – just your ordinary, everyday Dutchpersons. Nevertheless, they too have their grievances against the Union. Says Oda Selbos "with flowing red hair": "The euro is a big issue. Everything has doubled in price. When you went to Spain, it was nice to have a different currency. I want to have my guilder back."

Particularly exercising the Dutch is the ratchet of the growth and stability pact, which has forced the government to impose strict controls on public borrowing, causing considerable resentment when German and France seems to be able to break the pact provisions with impunity. This has special resonance as the Dutch are now acutely aware that they are the highest per capita contributors to the community budget.

Voters, Browne tells us, also have concerns about the economic impact of the euro. He talks to Xavier Schilling, an insurance manager, who says: "A lot of people in Holland at first thought the constitution was a good thing. Now they worry because the economy is not doing that well."

There is also widespread opposition to the decision to commence entry negotiations with Turkey. If she joined the EU, this would give 70 million Muslims the right to live and work in Western Europe. These fears are being given voice by the maverick politician Geert Wilders, whose opposition to radical Islam, Turkey and the constitution has propelled him ahead of the Government in the polls. Writes Browne:

In a recent speech in Rotterdam, Mr Wilders said: "The political elite wants to admit Turkey to the Union, an Islamic land of millions, that will have an enormous influence on the federal superstate. Because of the new European constitution, Turkey will have more influence on Dutch legislation than the Netherlands itself. It can't become crazier than this."

As with the UK though, the Hague government is relying on other member states – particularly France and Germany - ratifying the constitution before the voters go to the polls, when they hope their people will feel too isolated to reject it.

But Maurice de Hond, the Netherlands' most prominent pollster, said that the referendum is likely to become a protest vote about the direction of the EU. "People are voting about everything but the constitution," he said. "They are voting about the euro, about the ten new countries, about Turkey, about the Government. Turkey is a big issue and a much clearer issue than the constitution, which they have never read."

Browne concludes with some interesting observations: European leaders are now asking themselves what will happen if a country votes "no", he writes. It is generally accepted that, if France says "no", the constitution is effectively dead; and, if Britain says "no", the UK will have to renegotiate its relationship with the EU.

But what if the Netherlands, always one of its biggest cheerleaders, says "no"? One Dutch politician said: "If Britain rejects the constitution, Britain has a problem. But, if the Netherlands rejects the constitution, then the constitution has a problem."